The No State Project

[dentistsugardust]

hey, maybe i'm using the wrong words or leaving some out, because we are talking about the same thing. it would be obvious for a group wise decision to look towards the most gifted of the bunch to lead in certain instances. It's like i've come to prying out that we'd consider something such as this?

darren says and I agree:
I hope my response is not considering "firing at you", nor as "non-responsive". The fact is, once minds are freed from the myth of gubmintism, they are able to be fully applied to offering and accepting solutions in which multiple parties benefit (without extra parties "taking a cut" without permission). The details depend on the transaction and the medium of exchange (cash, labour, ideas, pleasure) but the reality is the same: consenting individuals enjoying human interactions without needing to resort to the threat or use of violent force.

And those who wish to not participate in said interactions, can choose to not participate.

after all is said here, the devil is still in the details. I cringe that these details were elected to ignore.

[creolefood]

In a society without the state, there would still be leaders. But they would be so because they have demonsrated proficiency and vision in a certain area; we have those kinds of leaders now in business, charity, sports, etc. What we would have fewer of however would be "leaders" who are given that title solely due to "authority." And I also believe that, were we stateless, most people would not feel the craving that some seem to have for "leaders" and would begin to look and think for themselves.

[NonEntity]

I still think that the use of the word "leader" creates the impression of a reality which does not exist. Just as Marc has helped me to grasp that the state does not exist, so I beseech serious consideration of the concept that leaders do not exist, only followers. Anyone has the ability to follow, whereas no one has the ability to lead. I think it is an important thing to grasp. I can attempt to lead you, but I am not capable of making the decision in your head that you will, in fact, follow. Only you can make that decision, hence my ability to lead is totally subsidiary to your willingness to follow.

I've written on a similar and related topic HERE and HERE.

Larken Rose wrote a post on "authority" today which I'm trying to get permission to quote or a link... more later if I'm successful.

- NonE

[Darren Dirt]

I guide and direct and punish and reward my children.

I do not truly "lead" them, you are right.

But the word certainly is a "shortcut" for all those things. Unfortunately, in the system we've all known it seems that "leaders" are synonymous with "dictators" or "tyrants" -- just differing in the matter of degrees of violence and lack of consent required.

I consider Ghandhi a "leader", historically, for those interested in nonviolent resistance to violent "leaders". Same word, vastly different connotation. (perhaps "guide" or "model" are better choices?)

[NonEntity]

Here's that post by Larken Rose:

Dear Subscriber,

"Good citizens" don't like to hear this, but its truth should be
obvious: The biggest threat to humanity, to peace, and to justice
is NOT personal malice. It is the belief in "authority." (Oddly,
most people have the delusional belief that "authority" is what
PROTECTS us from injustice and violence, when the exact opposite is
true.)

As one example, in this country about 400,000 people per year are
robbed by "private" thieves, while well over 200 million are robbed
by thieves acting on behalf of a supposed "authority." (The federal
income tax alone hits over 100 million people, while sales taxes,
property taxes, etc., hit just about everyone else as well.) In
other words, "government" robs 500 times as many people a year as
"private" crooks.

The FBI crime reporting system defines "robbery" as "the taking or
attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or
control of a person or persons by force or threat of force or
violence and/or by putting the victim in fear." Tell me that isn't
a perfect description of what the IRS does every day. The fact that
most people don't view authoritarian robbery as "theft" is a big
reason WHY it happens so often. If some group of people is believed
to have the moral RIGHT to forcibly take other people's stuff, of
COURSE they will do it more often than regular people.
The fact is, most EVIL is committed by basically GOOD people, for
one reason and one reason only: because those people believe in
"authority." It would be very convenient to imagine that the many
thousands of individuals who carried out the mass exterminations
under the regimes of Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and so on, were all
fundamentally evil and malicious. The truth is, they were very much
like most Americans are today: most of the time, they do as they
are told. Their primary sin is believing in "authority."

How many hundreds of thousands of pawns of a supposed "authority"
do things every day that they would never do acting on their own?
Why is it that someone who would never dream of personally
demanding money from a neighbor under threat of force will do the
exact same thing, day after day, for the IRS (or any other level of
"tax" collection)? It's not from malice or personal evil (or they
would do it on their own); it's all a result of "moral negligence."

The difference between malice and negligence is clear. Generally
speaking, it's really nasty to run someone over with a car on
purpose. It's considered significantly less nasty--though equally
destructive--to accidentally run someone over by not looking where
you're going, or by driving while drunk. Of course, whether it's
malice or negligence makes no difference to how squished the
pedestrian is. And while negligence is seen as a lot less serious a
"sin" than malice, it's still pretty dang bad (especially if it
results in someone dying).

Negligence can be summed up as "I wasn't TRYING to do harm; it just
happened because I wasn't really paying attention." And that is a
nice description of the harm inflicted by EVERYONE who works for
the IRS, ATF, DEA, BOP, and just about every other bureaucracy and
"law" enforcement department at every level of "government." They
commit acts of evil, which do real damage to innocent people, but
they completely deny individual responsibility for it. "I was just
doing my job" or "I'm just enforcing the law" is the universal
excuse. They completely dodge their personal responsibility. Just
the way a drunk driver negligently fails to control what his
vehicle is doing, the mind of the bureaucrat fails to control what
his body is doing. He serves as an unthinking puppet, with his own
moral judgment completely disabled by his belief in "authority."

The are two reasons why such "moral negligence" is far more
difficult to combat than outright malice and bad intent:

1) When the VICTIMS of the harm do not see the harm as evil because
of their own belief in "authority," they don't resist at all, and
frown upon those who do. Most people have the utmost contempt for
the mugger who swipes the old lady's purse containing $100, while
accepting it as legitimate and good when an IRS "revenue officer"
swipes $1,000 from that same old lady's bank account and calls it
"tax collection." If the forcible confiscation of wealth is seen as
LEGITIMATE, and resistance is seen as evil ("law-breaking"), of
course the harm will continue.

2) When the PERPETRATORS of the harm are just "doing what they are
told," even the few people who don't accept the "authority" excuse
hesitate to react violently against people whose main sin is being
unthinking drones. Imagine that you are one of those unfortunate
"undesirables" who were carted off to death camps. It is quite
likely that EVERY ONE of the "law enforcers" you would see along
the way--at your house, at the train station, even at the camps
with the gas chambers--is merely acting on behalf of "authority"
and not out of personal malice. Of course that won't make you any
less dead at the end of the day, but WHICH of those well-meaning
(but unthinking) pawns would you be willing to KILL in order to
resist? Because your choice is to do that, or die.

It's really convenient to have a bad guy to hate, and very
uncomfortable when the guy you have to shoot is merely idiotic
rather than truly evil. That is why there was such an uproar when
Hannah Arendt (a Jew) wrote a book explaining that Adolf Eichmann,
the famous facilitator of Nazi atrocities, was not acting out of
personal malice or evil, or even anti-Semitism. He was merely the
classic bureaucrat, an ordinary guy doing what he was told.

Dr. Stanley Milgram, author of "Obedience to Authority," said that
Arendt's assessment of the supposed arch villain "comes closer to
the truth than one might dare imagine." As I've said before, if you
haven't read Milgram's book documenting the results of his own
studies of blind obedience to a perceived "authority," DO. If it
doesn't scare the heck out of you, there's something wrong with
you.

Back to the point, good people don't like the idea of having to
hurt (or kill) people who are merely negligent. If you have to blow
someone's head off, you WANT it to be someone who epitomizes pure
evil, not some stupid bureaucrat. That's why so many Hollywood
movies spend so much time showing what a horrible guy the villain
is: so you can feel comfortable when he meets his gruesome end.

But reality isn't nearly so nice. In the real world, there are only
two choices: 1) good people will use force against basically good
people whose sin is to believe in (and obey) "authority," or 2)
those basically good (but authoritarian) people will commit
dramatic injustice due to their "moral negligence." Neither option
is pleasant, which is why injustice and oppression so often win:
because the GOOD victims of it hesitate to use violence against the
merely idiotic, while the unthinking people who IMPLEMENT the
injustice don't bat an eye before committing evil in the name of
"authority."

Time for the punch line which, if you're a "good citizen," you
aren't going to like: If you want to foster violence, destruction,
suffering, torture, murder, robbery, injustice and oppression,
teach your children to respect "authority." If not, don't. (Teach
them to respect individual rights instead.)

Sincerely,



Larken Rose
www.larkenrose.com

- NonE

[dentistsugardust]

" If you want to foster violence, destruction,
suffering, torture, murder, robbery, injustice and oppression,
teach your children to respect "authority." If not, don't. (Teach
them to respect individual rights instead.)"

isn't this drawing lines in the sand? a contradiction also?

we've progressed this threshold of understanding already where children are raised to respect their elders. there is an interception that overrides these weenings and we are responsible for letting it get out of control. we call the interception, government. the sand trap that invites the stress onto advent succeeders who eventually comply with corrupt government, totally ignoring a freedom responsibility and yet seeking sympathy when they break down because the bill's got to be payed. How selfish is that? Willing to sacrifice for backward priority until it drives them to seek medical attention. The mind and body shouts "Wait! and it's breakdown is attributed to food and exercise. (someone needs to come up with a wake up formula unlike caffeinne or it's immitators)
I can't imagine that in it's inception, the government was a creative vision leaning towards corruption. do we all believe that? although american slave trade went 500 years, these dictums (declaration of Independence, bill of rights,etc) mirrored persons who sound like they were seeking, free.
I don't know how the American settler spat began with the Indian and Mexican culture that existed here before they arrived. this is only half proof of a contradiction on the settler's part seeking freedom. Did these settler's mean to include these slaves and indians and mexicans in their freedom idea? or did some have evil hearts and did not recognize them as human beings, thereby polluting the freedom idea with contradiction? is this the reason that some of these documents are perceived as being not well thought out? thanks to who ever refused to let Lysander Spooner's voice die out, I may have never learned this. so ultimately we had boat loads of folks including fools and tyrants and thieves trample onto a land occupied by others who did not look like them. and we can go on with the familiar story, but the guts of it is this, these people were hopeful to the thoughts of they will be free. Everyone of them in unison agreement. what makes us think that we can let go of structure and leave it to individuality? we've seen the well-reared child who is corrupted sometimes by it's own means and sometimes by peer. If any us are truly yearning for freedom we cannot dash advents for protecting and maintaining it. we oh! excuse me, I cannot allow A woman/man to become an independant conqueror of human,animal or even insect or plant life. the harmony must be maintained in this freedom. You may think and give up on the idea and that we are incapable of containing structure. Well, we did and continue to fail at it. But, the overall conclusion here among some of us is that guidelines are bad! Free people broke the guidelines! And they will break an underlying code to. We talk of "contract" constantly as the all-being in commerce relationship among individuals. don't get me wrong, I'm for not having all these things. but the reality as it is now and for the next umteenooo,ooo years, who knows before the time that we could realistically evolve to this collective state of mind. if it's even at all possible. But right now, in this overly stress-induced reality, we cannot relinquish to men, freedom without outlawing contradiction to freedom. therefore we have to maintain a fear that it can become manipulated. maintain the fear would be a bad choice of words if not for the reality. I believe all this could be, I hate to say it, "controlled" if we concentrate on the corruptors of our freedom as we add continuation to Lysander and the likes. just an abiding contract is all I'm sayin'. you can call and equate it to government all you want, but the plain english written there was heartfelt. how else could they misguide us all, if they didn't have good parts to pick, choose and misquote from?
please bear with me. I like to believe I'm also looking to be free here at this round table we call earth

[NonEntity]

Yo, Dentist.

DO YOU KNOW HOW EMAILS WRITTEN IN ALL CAPITALS ARE REALLY ANNOYING AND HARD TO READ?

So are solid blocks of text with random capitalization and virtually no formating for content.

I won't read either.

If you want me to read what you write then at least show me the respect of trying to communicate clearly.

I can't speak for others.

- NonE

[creolefood]

dentist,
I'm thinking that maybe if we put your posts under a blacklight, while listening to Led Zeppelin's "Stairay to Heaven" backwards, after having done a hit of acid, we'll see God.

[NonEntity]

Creole,

I hadn't thoughta that! I think you've hit on it. Now if I can just find some acid someplace... ;D

- NonE

[Darren Dirt]

nonentity said:

Yo, Dentist.

DO YOU KNOW HOW EMAILS WRITTEN IN ALL CAPITALS ARE REALLY ANNOYING AND HARD TO READ?

So are solid blocks of text with random capitalization and virtually no formating for content.

I won't read either.

If you want me to read what you write then at least show me the respect of trying to communicate clearly.

I can't speak for others.

- NonE

I keep adding to a little Javascript bookmarklet on my desktop (at home and work) that does a bunch of text cleanup things (like replacing Microsoft Word's annoying apostrophes and quotation marks with ' and " , or removing accents from letters, etc.)

A while back I added one: "break into PARAGRAPHS (dentistsugardust esp.!)" In simple English*, it adds line breaks after every period+space (". ") -- thus I just copy-paste dentist's words of wisdom and voila instant readability



- - -

* in more complex non-English, or specifically "Javascript regular expressions", it's a one-liner function:
return strOld.replace(/\. +/g,".\n\n").trim(); ;D

[dentistsugardust]

the brunt of what i'm saying is that we look at our lives as being imposed by a government that stress guidelines that are credited to the good of the entire, but we look at the pros and cons of it as controlling overall. We view it negatively, solely. the doctrines or obedience guides, although faulty and incomplete are not the reason. it is the person some have trusted to oversee these. and if we have developed a distrust for this person (we is including the ones who did not vote for. because after all, we all do make up the affected society), it should more or less be determined by the guidelines that all of us have participated in.

we'll forever have problems with arbitrary curiousity:

who will determine detrimental invention such as nuclear warhead as either good or bad?

who will determine when the paper industry is thinning forestry, and that they are endangering the inhabitants?

who will determine that the new pesticide which kills off pests so that they are rendered extinct, will or will not ever be further developed or marketed? or if it has reached the market and has become a marketing success but has been discovered to contain a toxic by-product.

who will stand up against some who ignore and sneak.

will one man's complaint be enough persuasion for correction?
if not then there has to be a collective interest.
when doctrine goes by unchecked,this becomes an opportunity window for corruption and manipulation.
I can't say that all ill action of government is deliberate when there is so much ground to cover at anyones attempt at correction of an evolving corrupt condition.
A policeman gets stopped,by a lawyer who gets stopped by a judge who gets stopped by a mayor who gets checked by a governor who gets checked by a president who carries out daily corrupt agenda. generating quagmire, enigma and expression of their freedoms by freely creating cover-ups for real reasons into nefarious and selfish activity.

what will stand on guard for the neighboring fool who has stored fireworks into his house?
what will stand as adherent to a father and kid around the block from shooting practice in their backyard.

a totally free of guidance society cannot be.

this is where you invite contradiction, by not being complete in a thought or plan of idea. It remains an idea left to interpretation by freethinkers or individuals.

because civilization evolved wise enough to come up with the idea of guidelines, we shouldn't just easily perceive that we can dash the concept of who knows how many years, centuries or milleniums, of an evolved.

yes I believe because of the follower mentality, societies became lazy and the next generations were born onto this train of being. soon just one person stepping out of bounds becomes fifty, until it becomes a behemoth. it wasn't because of the doctrines. it was the allowing of the manipulations. allowing secret languages. allowing the devisiveness. the relinqiush does us no good now and it will not ever.

wasn't this supposed to be a brunt of? sorry

the brunt of the story is, after all, there is still strength in numbers. the #1, #17 even #155. a group called numbers. we control their order because we are of the thinking capacity
and i'm not talking about SS #'s or ID #'s

[NonEntity]

I agree totally. I hereby grant all control of everything for alltime to the Dentist, for he is obviously pure enough and omniscient so as to know better than me or anyone I know how to decide things in my life. Whew! Now that that's overwith I can go back to watching TeeVee.

(What is a "brunt of? sorry" ) I skipped over most of the rest of it.

Oh yes, as to the "a totally free of guidance society cannot be," I'm sure you know who it is who is so better and smarter and purer and more benevolent (benovolenter?) than all the rest of the mere humans so as to be able to make the "right" choices which I am so obviously incapable of making. So just install him in power already, will you, and quit with the incoherent whining. It's getting old.

- NonE

[lummox2]

What "follower mentality"?

There are people who threaten others, and those who come up with plausible explanations to save their own ego's. Most people swallow the shit that gets peddled until they actually have to deal with someone from "the state" then they realise the truth...and carry on with the cover story because they feel powerless.

Does threatening people with "laws" work at getting stuff done? Sure it does. Is it better than brutal dictatorship? Sure it is. Does it do what it say it will do? Does it hell! It can't.

It might be an idea to look at it like this. The state has nothign whatsoever to do with the rest of society. There is no link between what it does and everything else. It just claims there is.

[dentistsugardust]

i'm so sorry that this has risen to insults. I was only injecting my thought and not imposing my ideas.

I've got a grammar handicap and this results in my being condemned to lower intellectual status. I'm to be belittled and not respected no matter the content. well, well, well

oh yes, I'm sorry that my haste relates as being disrespectful

[marc stevens]

Let's not descend to using insults and ad hominem attacks. I don't think we need to resort to doing things like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly on this forum.